Not all AGS0 created equal?

[ozziegt]

OK...I''ve been reading/researching diamonds for a while and every time I get close to deciding to buy from the internet something comes up that makes me change my mind. Perhaps you all can help reassure me, or at least educate me.

I''ve been looking at diamonds for a couple months now and I had come to the conclusion that as long as I got an AGS0 diamond it would be a really nice diamond. Now I am reading in a couple posts on here that sometimes the "depth and table" don''t match up right on AGS0 diamonds?? What does that mean? I''m not looking for an H&A...I am looking for the most sparkle for my buck and I thought that AGS0 would provide that (with ideal symmetry and polish)...is this a safe assumption or not?

 

[sirene]

I would love to know, too!

 

[WalnutCrunch]

I've actually found lots of AGS ideal-0 diamonds during my search that aren't too well cut (according to HCA and DiamCalc). Thanks to the great people here like Rhino at GOG, I got DiamCalc results and advice that helped me eliminate those stones from my search.

Because the AGS ideal proportions are a range, it actually covers a large array of measurements. It's not difficult to see that while there'll be some good combinations of angles and percentages, there'll also be quite a few bad ones. It seems like a lot of stones are cut to proportions that fit in this range instead of proportions that produce the most beauty; at least that's my explanation for all the less-than-spectacular AGS ideal-0s that I've found.

So when shopping, it's fine to look for AGS ideal-0 stones, but make sure you check out the proportions so you don't end up paying a premium for a stone that doesn't perform. The HCA is your friend (use your eyes too, but I can never see any difference!).